WDIE Masthead

Year 2007 No. 66, October 9, 2007 ARCHIVE HOME JBBOOKS SUBSCRIBE

Not One More Death Demo:

A Spirit that Cannot Be Curtailed

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Not One More Death Demo:
A Spirit that Cannot Be Curtailed

From the Press

Iraqis March in Baghdad against New US Wall

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly - £33.95 (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10


Not One More Death Demo:

A Spirit that Cannot Be Curtailed

As Gordon Brown made his statement on Iraq in what is upheld by the monopolies, government and media, as the centre of representative democracy, the Houses of Parliament, the people marched on this centre with the spirit of a democracy in which the people are the decision-makers.

            5,000 people took to the streets and made a unified stand to bring the troops home now. Despite the pre-march ban of the gathering in Parliament Square, the people came prepared to demonstrate. This show of defiance was a victory for the protesters as the ban was lifted in time for the march.

            The voice of the march was one of opposing Brown’s “representative democracy” that has ignored the people’s will that these imperialist wars should be stopped. And in representing this will, it could be said that democracy was taking shape in the movement against war, as the demonstrators’ demands to bring all troops home now, and to put an end to the use of force, reflected the programme of the people for an anti-war government.

            This democratic spirit was evident in that participants were exchanging literature and information. All wanted to listen to each other as to what form the march would take and what the aim of the march was and not to decide on the basis of which organisation one belonged to.

            This spirit created a unity of thought and action, and so a heavy police presence did not faze the marchers even when the police split the march in three, trying to stop sections of the protest from carrying on. The protesters simply stayed unified in thought and action with one section upholding the other section demanding “let them march”.

            Confronting parliament, in which Brown was making his statement, the pro-active slogans of the people were, “We are not criminals. You are the criminals”, and also, “Whose Right to Protest? Our Right to Protest”. This affirmation of who is the legitimate power was an important factor in the strength of the march: “Whose Streets? Our Streets!”

            As well as a big youth presence, the workers took part with representatives of the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) and also education workers’ unions. Emanating from all was a militancy that made the march a serious force.

            This force was not going to be curtailed by any attempts by the ruling class or their authorities, and as such showed the mainstream of power does in fact lie with the people. The question is how to channel that power, a force for true democracy to take the steps to overthrow “those who have usurped power by force” and create a new society based on this democracy and in the defence of the rights of all.

            This kind of march shows that the creation of an anti-war government is not only of the highest necessity for humankind, but that those on the march were representative of a force that could achieve such a goal.

Article Index



From the Press:

 

Back from Basra

Leader, Tuesday October 9, 2007, Guardian

Contradiction lay at the heart of the prime minister's statement on Iraq yesterday, which set out details of Britain's unavoidable retreat from Basra, without admitting how much has gone wrong there. He implied that 2,500 British troops are coming home because their mission has been a success, when it much more resembles the "catastrophe" described by Sir Menzies Campbell. He offered welcome sanctuary to some Iraqi staff, without explaining why, if Britain's job is done, it is too dangerous for them to be left behind. Nor could he do much to explain what Britain's remaining troops are expected to do, or when they will leave, or whether they will even be able to protect themselves. Mr Brown's strategy of withdrawal is a realistic one, but it is hardly glorious and it is not accompanied by any explanation of a wider strategy for southern Iraq.

            Mr Brown is learning fast what it means to be prime minister, exposed, as he never was as chancellor, to the firestorms of politics. Having survived his first press conference of the new parliamentary year – on election timing he said "I take the blame", though his tone was more rueful than penitent and he continued to claim, against all reason, that the polls played no part in settling his mind against an early contest – Mr Brown found himself caught by fierce criticism from David Cameron over how troop reductions have been presented. The Conservative leader pressed home his objections to the nature of Mr Brown's visit to Iraq last week. Conservatives asked too whether troops that are in reality only relocating to Kuwait should be described as coming home. In this tangle of claim and counterclaim, Mr Brown has been slow to provide answers. It was a taste of competitive politics to come.

            The prime minister's strategy of withdrawal from Iraq is none the less the right one, since he knows that neither domestic nor military opinion can support a large presence in the country for much longer, however much the Americans might want it. But he is making a mistake if he thinks that Britain can claim real success in the country. It is true that the numbers of trained servicemen in southern Iraq has grown and violence has fallen. Violence against British troops has indeed dropped dramatically in Basra, although Iraqi civilians continue to bear the brunt of assassinations and kidnappings. But British troops have had little to do with the partial peace they leave behind. It has been created by political deals with Shia militias. A ceasefire of forces loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, secured by the release from prison of a number of his top militiamen, has been followed by an agreement between the cleric and his main Shia rival, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This is not a repeat of Northern Ireland, where talks followed the bombs and bullets largely because the Provisional IRA realised it had more to gain from a political path than it had from a military one. Two Shia militias have called a halt to their military campaign, and Sunni forces in Anbar province have agreed to change sides – for now. But the tap of violence can be as swiftly turned on again. Peace depends on what each group gains politically.

            The reality is that Britain's power to shape events is now limited, and will become more so. Mr Brown said yesterday that British forces will maintain a "more limited" capacity for re-intervention. This is a convenient myth: troop movements will only be one way. In Basra and elsewhere in the south, peace depends on an agreed division of the oil wealth, and on Iran's attitude. Britain can help a little by trying to stop the US from talking up a military strike on Iran. If Iran responded it would be through its proxies in the south of Iraq. British forces are doing the right thing by withdrawing, but that does not mean their departure will improve life for Iraqis. They are simply ending a mission they should never have undertaken.

 

Draw-down has more to do with Afghanistan – not Iraq

By Gerri Peev

British troop numbers in Iraq will be cut to only 2,500 next spring, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announced yesterday, raising the prospect of the UK's final withdrawal from the country.

            But as he tried to reach out to voters who opposed the invasion, critics said he was simply redeploying Britain's forces to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan. The announcement that UK troop numbers in Basra will drop to 4,500 by December and possibly to 2,500 by spring – fewer than half the current 5,500 – cheered Labour MPs alarmed by their party's recent collapse in the opinion polls.

            Yet soldiers, analysts and some MPs predict that the winding down of the UK operation in Basra will coincide with a further intensification of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

            Since Britain first announced it was sending troops to Afghanistan, their numbers and British casualties have steadily risen. The death toll stands at 82.

            In January 2006, John Reid, the then defence secretary, announced British troops in Afghanistan would peak at 5,700. For most of the three-year mission, he said, the force would number about 4,700.

            However, according to the Ministry of Defence's figures, there are now more than 6,000 troops in the country. That will rise to 7,700 in the course of this year. And experts warned it could go even higher next year, with plans for a new offensive that could involve up to 1,400 Scottish troops.

            The Black Watch battalion is tipped to move back to its Inverness barracks as it is no longer required in Northern Ireland and military sources say the troops are available for Afghan operations. The Highlanders are also expected to be sent to Afghanistan, having undergone the appropriate training in Canada.

            A former MoD official said it was disingenuous for Mr Brown to make a statement on Iraq and not Afghanistan.

            Steve Haines, now a professor of military strategy at Royal Holloway, University of London, said: "You can't talk about one without talking about the other. Playing around with 500 or so is not going to make a difference in either operation.

            "The draw-down has more to do with the need to strengthen infantry in Afghanistan. It's not really about Iraq. To say we need fewer people in Iraq is ridiculous.

            Our troops have been screwed by this government, they have been reduced and reduced again."

            Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former government security adviser to Mr Brown, warned: "As the very difficult situation in Iraq comes to some sort of conclusion, extra fighting troops are going to be required in Afghanistan.

            "The government is bringing troops out of Iraq in relatively small numbers, but at the same time sending them to Afghanistan in larger numbers."

            Mr Brown said yesterday that Britain now had about 8,000 members of the armed forces in Afghanistan – higher than the figure provided by the MoD.

            He renewed his commitment to fighting the Taleban and hinted further announcements could be on the way, adding: "Afghanistan is the front line against the Taleban. If the Taleban were to take over in Afghanistan, the whole of the civilised world would be affected.

            "We must support America and NATO forces in Afghanistan. We have around 8,000 troops, around 20 [per cent] of the armed forces, in Afghanistan, and we are supporting reconstruction in what is, essentially, a rural economy."

            But Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, called on Mr Brown to be upfront about his plans for Afghanistan. "Our troops deserve clarity from Gordon Brown on his plans for them post-Basra rather than cheap photo opportunities," he said.

            "Just months ago, Labour ministers were claiming not a shot would be fired in Afghanistan, yet casualties are sadly mounting while the narcotics trade is going through the roof. There are many unanswered questions about the mission in Afghanistan, currently the most dangerous engagement for our troops since the Second World War."

            Making his announcement on Iraq troop reductions to MPs yesterday, Mr Brown said there would be two stages. The first would kick in by next month when troops would be cut as provincial control was handed to the Iraqis. There would also be a second stage from spring. About 500 logistics and support personnel would also be based in the region – probably Kuwait.

            Mr Brown said the objective was "achieving our long-term aim of handing over security to the Iraqi armed forces and police, honouring our obligations to the Iraqi people and to their security and ensuring the safety of our forces".

            David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, criticised Mr Brown for making the initial announcement about troop withdrawals during his trip to Basra last week, rather than to parliament. He added: "This is about dealing with people's lives and the families of our brave servicemen.

            "This is just not an acceptable way for a prime minister to behave."

            Adam Holloway, a former army officer and Tory MP, said Mr Brown was still working on an election timetable.

            "He's fixated on Iraq because of his early election planning grid. This statement was about his election planning, because he calculated Iraq is where the votes are for him, not in Afghanistan.

            "Iraq did not and does not represent a threat to us, but there is a clear national interest in what we are doing in Afghanistan. We have been obsessed with Iraq for several years and, as a result, we have neglected Afghanistan and missed a window of opportunity for properly improving the country."

            Meanwhile, thousands of people staged an anti-war march to parliament yesterday after police decided at the last minute to lift a threatened ban.

            The Stop The War Coalition said the march struck a blow for "liberty and democracy" and claimed the attempt to stop it had swelled support.

            Police said 2,000 people joined the march, but organisers said the figure was at least double that, with students, trade unionists and peace activists taking part.

            The march disrupted traffic outside parliament just as the Prime Minister was due to arrive to tell MPs about the latest phase of British troop withdrawals from Iraq.

            Mr Brown was seen being driven along adjoining roads to Whitehall to avoid being caught up in the march.

            Lindsey German, coalition convener, said the message to the government was: "You will never draw a line under this war until you bring all our troops home."

Thousands In War Protest

Thousands of people made an anti-war march to parliament yesterday after police decided at the last minute to lift a threatened ban.

            The Stop The War Coalition said the march struck a blow for "liberty and democracy" and claimed the attempt to stop it had swelled support.

            Police said 2,000 people joined the march, but organisers said the figure was at least double that, with students, trade unionists and peace activists taking part.

            The march disrupted traffic outside parliament just as the Prime Minister was due to arrive to tell MPs about the latest phase of British troop withdrawals from Iraq.

            Gordon Brown was seen being driven along adjoining roads to Whitehall to avoid being caught up.

            Lindsey German, coalition convener, said the message to the government was: "You will never draw a line under this war until you bring all our troops home."

£100m For War Zone Vehicles

Britain will order 140 more Mastiff patrol vehicles for British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gordon Brown announced.

            More than £100 million has been allocated to buy patrol vehicles, and the Ministry of Defence will finalise the deal in the next few weeks.

            "I can announce today that in addition to the 100 bought and deployed last year in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence is placing an order for an additional 140 Mastiff patrol vehicles," Mr Brown told parliament.

            The Cougar Mastiff patrol vehicles, made by the US firm Force Protection, are armoured against mines and roadside bombs.

            In July 2006 the MoD announced it was providing new Mastiff vehicles and they arrived in Iraq in December 2006.

 

Brown to make key Iraq statement

Al Jazeera, Oct 8

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, is expected to make a major announcement regarding his country's role in the war in Iraq.

            The address to parliament on Monday comes as a new study claims the US-led "war on terror" has been a disaster and Brown faces domestic criticism after his climbdown over plans to hold an early UK election. The prime minister visited Iraq last week where he said that 1,000 British troops would leave the country by Christmas. But it later emerged that half of the cuts had already been announced.

            The revelation prompted claims that he had manipulated the media for party political or electoral gain.

            The Oxford Research Group, a UK-based global security think-tank, said in a report on Monday that the US and its allies, including the UK, should rethink their policy on Iraq and Afghanistan as it had been a "disaster".

ORG report: Key points

            Some of the comments made in the Oxford Research Group report and by its author, Paul Rogers.

-           Every aspect of the "war on terror" has been counterproductive.

-           Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs.

-           The US-led war in Iraq was a "grievous mistake".

-           The removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan has been of "direct value" to al-Qaeda.

-           The policy of "extraordinary rendition" of suspects in third-party countries outside US legal jurisdiction created a useful propaganda weapon.

-           The US and its allies need to better understand the roots of al-Qaeda and its support base. The report, Towards Sustainable Security: Alternative Approaches to the War on Terror, said that western strategy since the September 11 attacks had failed to extinguish the threat from Islamist extremism and had even helped fuel it.

            Paul Rogers, the author of the report, said: "Every aspect of the war on terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through mass detentions without trial.

            "In short, it has been a disaster.

            "Western countries simply have to face up to the dangerous mistakes of the past six years and recognise the need for new policies."

            Brown is scheduled to update MPs about British troop levels in southern Iraq in parliament at 1430GMT.

            He will first have to negotiate what is expected to be a rigorous press briefing where he is likely to face accusations he lost his nerve over the weekend by deciding not to call an election for November 1 after poll ratings showed his popularity had fallen sharply.

            Labour MPs, many of whom are furious over the election debacle, which has given opposition politicians the chance to accuse Brown of being weak and indecisive.

            Brown, who took over from Tony Blair three months ago, insisted he would have won an election had he decided to call it, but wanted time to carry out his policies first.

Profile: Gordon Brown

            "The easiest thing I could have done is call an election. I could have called an election on competence ... We could have won an election now or won an election sooner or later," Brown said in an interview with the BBC.

            "I believe the country deserves to see from us our vision of the future and our implementation of it."

            Speculation of an early vote grew over the past few weeks when polls showed Brown with an 11 percent lead over his Conservative rivals.

            The government rescheduled business to make an early vote possible, and Brown fuelled the speculation by refusing for weeks to rule it out.

            David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said Brown was treating the public "like fools".

            Questions over Brown's leadership come as frustration grows in the UK over the country's involvement in Iraq.

            Ben Griffin, the first member of the British army’s elite SAS to quit on moral grounds after tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera there was a growing frustration among British troops in Iraq who he said were increasing asking: "what are we doing here?"

            He said: "Obviously the troops who have been told they are coming home are going to be pleased about it.

            "I think there is a sense within the troops that if any more die they will have died for nothing."

            Roger Bacon, a Briton whose son, a major in the intelligence corps, was killed in Iraq in 2005, told Al Jazeera he thought it was time for British troops to return home.

            "As far as I am concerned, get them out of the country. We have to withdraw," he said.

 

UK to halve Iraq troop commitment

ePolitix : Mon, 8 Oct 2007

The prime minister has told MPs that he plans to more than halve British troop numbers in Iraq to 2,500 next year.

            Gordon Brown used a long-awaited Commons statement on UK strategy in Iraq on Monday to set out plans to bring 1,000 UK troops home before Christmas and a further 2,000 by the spring.

            He said that following the "demanding operation" of moving troops to Basra airport completed last month, "we are in a position to announce further progress".

            With Iraqi forces now ready to take responsibility for security in Basra province within two months, Brown said Britain would move to an "overwatch" role.

            This will concentrate on training and mentoring the Iraqi army and police force and securing the southern border to Iran, as well as being able to come to local forces' assistance when called upon.

            "The next important stage in delivering our strategy to hand over security to the Iraqis is to move from a combat role in the rest of Basra province to 'overwatch' which will have two distinct stages," he said.

            During the first period of "provincial Iraqi control" Britain will reduce its troop numbers from 5,500 to 4,500 and then to 4,000.

            By spring next year, Brown said it was planned for this to become a scaled-down overwatch, with a "more limited re-intervention capacity", mainly focused on training and mentoring.

            At that point, the government plans to reduce forces to 2,500, with a further decision about the next phase then.

            "We will meet our obligations, honour our commitments and discharge our duties to the international community and to the people of Iraq," he said.

            Turning to the wider situation in the region, Brown said the coalition's strategy had been one of aiding political reconciliation, security and economic reconstruction, as agreed by the UN.

            He told Iraqi politicians that: "They must make the long-term commitments needed to achieve reconciliation."

            And he said Iran and Syria must "play a far more constructive role" by stopping the arming of terrorists.

            Earlier Brown denied that the statement would be an "admission of defeat" in managing the aftermath of the 2003 war.

            "As we take some troops out of Iraq, it is because we believe that the Iraqis are in a position to run their security forces themselves," he told reporters at a Downing Street press conference.

            "Therefore, you cannot see the reduction of troops as an admission of defeat or a run-down or as a threat to security. It is the other way round.

            "When we announce less troops in Iraq, it is because we are winning the security battle and that there is a lull in some of the fighting that has taken place in Iraq – we hope it is a permanent lull."

            The statement also included plans to offer assistance to around 500 local Iraqi staff and their families, who had worked for UK forces for more than a year.

            The announcement came after a campaign was launched on their behalf in protest at the staff being refused asylum, despite being threatened with persecution for working for the coalition.

            "I am pleased to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in uniquely difficult circumstances," he said.

            "Existing staff who have been employed by us for more than 12 months and have completed their work will be able to apply for a package of financial payments to aid resettlement elsewhere in Iraq or elsewhere in the region or – in agreed circumstances – for admission to the UK.

            "And professional staff, including interpreters and translators, with a similar length of service, who have left our employ since the beginning of 2005, will also be able to apply for assistance."

Article Index



Iraqis March in Baghdad against New US Wall

By Haider Salahuddin, Reuters, Oct 6, 2007

More than a thousand Iraqis marched in west Baghdad on Saturday in a rare public demonstration to protest against a wall they say the US military is planning to erect around their neighbourhood.

            Carrying an Iraqi national flag and banners condemning the wall the marchers in the predominantly Shi'ite district of al-Washash chanted "No, no to the wall. No, no to America."

            The US military sparked international outrage earlier this year when it began erecting a high concrete barrier to shield the Sunni Arab enclave of Adhamiya in east Baghdad from neighbouring Shi'ite communities.

            While tens of thousands of Iraqis often mass for religious festivals, a pervasive fear of violence means public protests against US or Iraqi government policy are seldom seen.

            "Today we are saying no to the occupiers, no to the wall and no to all these disgraceful actions," said Abu Jalal al-Saraji, one of the local tribal leaders in al-Washash in Baghdad's predominantly Sunni Arab west Baghdad.

            The US military had no immediate comment.

            The military has said it is erecting concrete walls in at least five Baghdad neighbourhoods. The aim is to protect the areas from gunmen as part of a US security crackdown, launched in mid-February, which involves 30,000 extra US troops.

            The security push is seen as a final attempt by the US military to stem sectarian violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs and prevent all-out civil war.

            While the so-called "surge" is being credited with a marked drop in civilian and US casualties in September this year, car bombs and sectarian killings still occur daily.

            In al-Washash, some small concrete blocks have been placed across a road and the protesters say the US is planning to replace them with a high wall next week.

            "The occupiers are planning to build a wall around our area but we see that as them putting the area under siege," said another tribal leader who did not give his name. "This is a secure area and this is a peaceful demonstration to condemn it."

            While the march passed peacefully, police said two civilians were wounded in clashes with the Iraqi army afterwards.

            US air strikes on the neighbourhood in September killed at least 14 people including one woman and destroyed 11 houses, Iraqi police and residents said. The US military said its troops came under fire from gunmen on rooftops in the area.

(Additional reporting by Mussab al-Khairalla and Aws Qusay)

 

Footnote:

Wall protests are not rare

Roads to Iraq, Yet another Iraqi Blog

For some reason many news media are reporting today’s protest against the US wall in Baghdad as unusual event, even Reuters reported it as “Rare march in Baghdad against new US wall“. Here is a reminder: since the first wall was erected in Ahdamiya there were at least 12 demonstrations. Funny to mention what Maliki said at that time “Iraq PM orders halt to Baghdad wall: I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop. There are other methods to protect neighbourhoods.”

Article Index



RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page